The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-17
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court Decisions.

GRAVEL NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1864. Samuel W. Black ct al. VS.. Francis
Thomson ct al Carroll c. c; Affirmed Nib
that the question to whether the prescribed
majority of land holders have signed the petit
ton for free gravel road remains an open ques-
tion until the board proceeds to consider and to
act upon the report which has been submitted
to it, and until that time the names of persons
may be added to the petition at their pleasure
and the names OF persons who have signed it
may be withdrawn by leave OF the board which
ought not to be refused on reasonable terms,
cept for good cause shown in the nature of an
estoppeL The motions for leave to withdraw
names attached to the petition were made after
the report of the engineer and before the ruling
of the Board of Commissioners, and were
tered in time and could be renewed on appeal,
the case standing de novo In the Circuit Court.
or treated as pending motions. The cause being
appealed to this court and remanded, it stood in
that respect as when it 6rst reached the Circuit
Court. The fact that the dissatisfied petition
ers permitted the remonstrants to move to dis
miss the cause in the Circuit Court for want of
jurisdiction does not amount to waiver of
their right to press these motions
ExEoUTIoN-vo1D sALE-PRACTIoE.
1888. Jesse johnson Elias G. Murray.
administrator, ct al Grant c. g. Affirmed.
Elliott J.-Where q clerk issues alias writ
there must be motion to quash it, some
such direct attack. A suit to quiet title after
sale has been made on execution will be unavail
ing. e. Where a plaintiff seeks to quiet title
to ali the land in controversy upon a specific
claim that he is the absolute owner of it, he can
not succeed Oy showing that he was entitled to
partition or to some relief of entirely differ
emit character.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. CONSTRUED.
1903. Pennsylvania Company ct al vs.. Sam
uel Dunlap johnson C. G. Affirmed. collars,
G. J.-This case involves the question whether
the act of 1885 D. pa. repealed the old law (R.
s.. Section 4025. ct seq.) and the court reviews
both acts at length. It is held that notwith-
standing the act of 1885 the corporation owning
the railway and the lessees, etc. are jointly La
BILE for the injury or killing of animals as form
erly; that the manner Of commencing and
prosecuting actions for injuries or death of ami
mails and the manner of collecting judgments
obtained is the same formerly, and that for
failure to fence az all places required by the
prior act railway COMPANIES are liable for the
to farm crossings and gates, the duty of keep
ing them closed having been expressly trans
ferred by the act Of 1885 to the landowners.
Under the old law the duty to fence results
positively enioined as specified. The old law is
in force except to the farm crossings and
gates above stated.
NORTHUMBERLAND.
1875. James H. Droneberger vs.. State
Clinton G. G. Affirmed. Mitchell. J.-Indict-
ment for keeping q nuisance. The affidavit
need not state the exact location OF the nuisance,
nor the names of the persons living near it given.
PROCEEDING SUPPLEMENTARY TO EXECUTION
PRACTICE.
1884 Thomas j. Hutchinson ct al. Isaac
Tranesman. Allen S. c. Affirmed Howk. j.
Under the statute, the mode to test the order
and affidavit filed in proceedings supplementary
strike out. Motion to quash is not author
lied. ~ The plaintiff may amend his COM
plant in such proceeding under the code (Sec.
1894. He may also amend his original affidavit.
(Sec. 342) e. Neither party in such case is n
titled to require the court to make q special
finding and state conclusions of law